Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

You didn't get these seats for free. He's got the good seats. He might not have been rolling in it until the Holtz years and then the YES program, but he was turning a decent profit.

Bottom line is. They shouldn't honor it. They should make him sue the University. Some guys sign a contract in the 80's and 50 years from now when all these party to that agreement are dead the new people are stuck with it? No. That isn't right. There has to be a line a drawn. I agree that the University should own up to this bad deal. But they should own up to it by doing what they have to do to get out of the bad deal that should not have been. Not just bite the bullet for all of eternity. You bite the bullet once and be done with not. Just keep biting it over and over again forever. That is called business, breaking bad deals and making good ones. It happens every day.

So because the deal ened up being a bad deal in the long-run, the university should just ignore their contractual obligations and illegally break the contract? That is not good business, especially if you're breaking a contract with your CUSTOMER, the one you make money off of. You run the risk of other customers shying away from entering into future agreements with you.

So because the deal ened up being a bad deal in the long-run, the university should just ignore their contractual obligations and illegally break the contract? That is not good business, especially if you're breaking a contract with your CUSTOMER, the one you make money off of. You run the risk of other customers shying away from entering into future agreements with you.

So because the deal ened up being a bad deal in the long-run, the university should just ignore their contractual obligations and illegally break the contract? That is not good business, especially if you're breaking a contract with your CUSTOMER, the one you make money off of. You run the risk of other customers shying away from entering into future agreements with you.

Yes it is good business. Businesses break contracts that aren't good for them all the time. It's not good business to make yourself suffer through a bad deal just to please a few old customers. They'll get over it and others will take their place. And if they really cared about their school and not their pocketbook or feeling like you are important because you are old than you would stay anyways and pay what everyone else is paying. Giving away willable right to buy seats? That is absurd that they did that and it needs to corrected. It never should have been. USC needs to take its stadium back from the codgers and I support their efforts.

So because the deal ened up being a bad deal in the long-run, the university should just ignore their contractual obligations and illegally break the contract? That is not good business, especially if you're breaking a contract with your CUSTOMER, the one you make money off of. You run the risk of other customers shying away from entering into future agreements with you.

No, some unethical businessmen may disagree with you. Because only a small percentage of the customers will actually try to enforce the agreements, the deal-breakers will come out ahead by just breaking the contracts and then hiring lawyers to defend any persons who try to enforce their rights. The cost of keeping their word is less than the cost of the breach (because most will not sue), and that includes the loss of good will because you are basically a scummy organization to your own customers.

The question now is do we want an athletic department that is run by unscrupulous businessmen like Hyman, or honorable people like Ray. To the extent Readrooster is defending the Hyman style, I suspect he is in a very small minority of people.

No, some unethical businessmen may disagree with you. Because only a small percentage of the customers will actually try to enforce the agreements, the deal-breakers will come out ahead by just breaking the contracts and then hiring lawyers to defend any persons who try to enforce their rights. The cost of keeping their word is less than the cost of the breach (because most will not sue), and that includes the loss of good will because you are basically a scummy organization to your own customers.

The question now is do we want an athletic department that is run by unscrupulous businessmen like Hyman, or honorable people like Ray. To the extent Readrooster is defending the Hyman style, I suspect he is in a very small minority of people.

This is correct. Deal breakers realize that most people will just take it. There are a few that fight, and the deal breakers can come out ahead. Most folks don't want to go through the years of litigation and expense to get to a just end.

Scum like this are why the judicial system is clogged and why it takes years to get anything done. People just break contracts because they didn't think it out well.

__________________If your worst fears come true, you no longer have anything left to fear.

Yes it is good business. Businesses break contracts that aren't good for them all the time. It's not good business to make yourself suffer through a bad deal just to please a few old customers. They'll get over it and others will take their place. And if they really cared about their school and not their pocketbook or feeling like you are important because you are old than you would stay anyways and pay what everyone else is paying. Giving away willable right to buy seats? That is absurd that they did that and it needs to corrected. It never should have been. USC needs to take its stadium back from the codgers and I support their efforts.

So, business morals just go out the door because your business made a bad decision 30 years ago? Just because other businesses do it doesn't make it right.

And I'm appalled that we should expect these folks to just increase what their paying out of the goodness of their hearts because they care about the school. 30 years ago I'm sure this was a lot of money to them, and I would be willing to bet that most, if not all, of them took advantage of this program due to their passion for Carolina. Just because it was a good financial deal doesn't make them money-hungry, Carolina-hating people. It makes them smart because they saw a good opportunity and took it. It's not like they forced the university to give them this deal. The university offered it. Don't throw business morals out the door just because it's losing you money 30 years later.

So, business morals just go out the door because your business made a bad decision 30 years ago? Just because other businesses do it doesn't make it right.

And I'm appalled that we should expect these folks to just increase what their paying out of the goodness of their hearts because they care about the school. 30 years ago I'm sure this was a lot of money to them, and I would be willing to bet that most, if not all, of them took advantage of this program due to their passion for Carolina. Just because it was a good financial deal doesn't make them money-hungry, Carolina-hating people. It makes them smart because they saw a good opportunity and took it. It's not like they forced the university to give them this deal. The university offered it. Don't throw business morals out the door just because it's losing you money 30 years later.

You make the mistake of thinking contracts and morals have something to do with each other. They are business tools. Nothing more. If I am an AD my PRIMARY duty is to do to what is best for the the Athletic Department and the university. That duty comes before any other duties to anyone else. Why should a new AD honor someone else's ridiculous deal that he wasn't even there to sign off on? I sure as heck would not honor any deal I don't agree with made by other people if I thought it was not what was best. I only uphold promises I ACTUALLY make. If I break I promise that I never made, that has nothing to do with me being a man of my word. I would do what I could to negotiate myself out of it first . If that didn't work, and these old contracts were standing in the way of my vision for THE FUTURE of the program I'd sure as heck be ready to go war for that vision. In my opinion these people have already gotten all they deserve out of that deal. They have already received its value and then some. It's time for this old regime to go and quit clinging to the promises of people who are long gone. It's time for the days of good-ol-boy favoritism to stop.

Well, thank goodness someone stood up against those aptly named business tools.

Well thank goodness someone is standing up against the decrepit old farts that refuse to pay what they should be paying for their seats and always get first pick. It's not fair that they got opportunities to make "a deal" that young people today will never have the opportunity again to make because no one will ever be stupid enough to ever offer something like that again. BURN OLD CAROLINA!

Well thank goodness someone is standing up against the decrepit old farts that refuse to pay what they should be paying for their seats and always get first pick. It's not fair that they got opportunities to make "a deal" that young people today will never have the opportunity again to make because no one will ever be stupid enough to ever offer something like that again. BURN OLD CAROLINA!

Hey man. We are not doing things like they were done in the old days anymore. It's time to get on board with the new way or gtho. If you want be someone of importance at USC the price has gone up. You don't get rely on the fact that you and your papa was a long time big shot or that you friends made you some promises in 1982 to secure your place. You want to keep your special place in hierarchy? Than you need to pay the full price everyone else is paying for it. In cash, not old memories.

You make the mistake of thinking contracts and morals have something to do with each other. They are business tools. Nothing more. If I am an AD my PRIMARY duty is to do to what is best for the the Athletic Department and the university. That duty comes before any other duties to anyone else. Why should a new AD honor someone else's ridiculous deal that he wasn't even there to sign off on? I sure as heck would not honor any deal I don't agree with made by other people if I thought it was not what was best. I only uphold promises I ACTUALLY make. If I break I promise that I never made, that has nothing to do with me being a man of my word. I would do what I could to negotiate myself out of it first . If that didn't work, and these old contracts were standing in the way of my vision for THE FUTURE of the program I'd sure as heck be ready to go war for that vision. In my opinion these people have already gotten all they deserve out of that deal. They have already received its value and then some. It's time for this old regime to go and quit clinging to the promises of people who are long gone. It's time for the days of good-ol-boy favoritism to stop.

I seriously doubt that these few lifetime contracts are standing in the way of the future of the program. Just because the folks that made the deal are long gone is no reason to now say the contract shouldn't be honored.

I understand businesses aren't all about morals. But a state-owned university that is tasked with educating our future leaders, including classes on ethics and corporate social responsibility, should do the morally correct thing and honor the contracts they entered into.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReadR00ster

Well thank goodness someone is standing up against the decrepit old farts that refuse to pay what they should be paying for their seats and always get first pick. It's not fair that they got opportunities to make "a deal" that young people today will never have the opportunity again to make because no one will ever be stupid enough to ever offer something like that again. BURN OLD CAROLINA!

So is it fair that my uncle got land super-cheap 30 years ago and the guy next to him has to pay triple the price for the same size land? Or should he pony up some extra money now since it was "a deal" 30 years ago to make it fair for the other guy? Come on, really? The young people of today will never have this opportunity? I can guarantee you that the young people of today have more opportunity to have a higher standard of living than most young people 30 years ago. Young people need to understand that morals and ethics mean something and that sometimes life isn't always fair.

No, some unethical businessmen may disagree with you. Because only a small percentage of the customers will actually try to enforce the agreements, the deal-breakers will come out ahead by just breaking the contracts and then hiring lawyers to defend any persons who try to enforce their rights. The cost of keeping their word is less than the cost of the breach (because most will not sue), and that includes the loss of good will because you are basically a scummy organization to your own customers.

The question now is do we want an athletic department that is run by unscrupulous businessmen like Hyman, or honorable people like Ray. To the extent Readrooster is defending the Hyman style, I suspect he is in a very small minority of people.

What is scummy the fact that this deal that goes on forever in perpetuity was allowed to happen in the first freaking place. This is NOT somethin that SHOULD be honored. It was incompetence and abuse of power that it was even offered in the first place, and someone should have down something to shut it down sooner.

I seriously doubt that these few lifetime contracts are standing in the way of the future of the program. Just because the folks that made the deal are long gone is no reason to now say the contract shouldn't be honored.

I understand businesses aren't all about morals. But a state-owned university that is tasked with educating our future leaders, including classes on ethics and corporate social responsibility, should do the morally correct thing and honor the contracts they entered into.

So is it fair that my uncle got land super-cheap 30 years ago and the guy next to him has to pay triple the price for the same size land? Or should he pony up some extra money now since it was "a deal" 30 years ago to make it fair for the other guy? Come on, really? The young people of today will never have this opportunity? I can guarantee you that the young people of today have more opportunity to have a higher standard of living than most young people 30 years ago. Young people need to understand that morals and ethics mean something and that sometimes life isn't always fair.

Kissing the rear ends of old people does equate not good ethics. Eric Hyman didn't promise this people jack squat, Ray Tanner didn't promise these people jack squat. There IS NO moral dilemma for them AT ALL. This is not a real property purchase we are talking about here. This is a continuing that says USC is supposed to continue to perform for all of eternity and the new regime at USC doesn't want to perform it any more because it's just not in their interests.

If this continues to be fought in court the old regime will probably win because this was drafted by USC officials in their official capacity, but it was still a betrayal to USC athletics and they won't get specific performance. They'll get offered a settlement and if court likes they will approve it or come up with a sum it think is fair for settlement/damages.

You have to understand not all contracts are the same. It's rare that contracts are this one-sided and exist for lifetime and are willable. People don't make these kinds of contracts unless they are between buddies or are desperate or both. How long have they honored this deal now. 30 years? Enough is enough. If USC is going to take negative PR for breaking their deal than they should get some props for honoring this ridiculous arrangement for for 30 dang years.

Pfft,, so first you lost, and now you won, and now you think it's over? Don't you know you have to win twice in a row? Besides the court just said that contract says he doesn't have to pay fee. They didn't order an injunction to make USC sell him the seats. USC can send a letter to mr Lee saying, "We don't care what the court said, if you don't pay another $325 per seat, we are not selling them to you anymore." Then Mr. Lee will have to go back to court and USC will probably make him a settlement offer, and Mr. Lee will probably seek the equitable remedy of specific performance of the contract, and the court will probably deny the request, because it is not for land and monetary figure on damages would be adequate, he can still purchase ticket like everyone else afterwards and the people that would have to perform the contract are those that agreed to be bound by it. At the end of the day it is going to come down to one thing. Is the money worth it? The PR issue is not going to be a big deal. News stations are not going to flock with reports for some boring story like that.

Kissing the rear ends of old people does equate not good ethics. Eric Hyman didn't promise this people jack squat, Ray Tanner didn't promise these people jack squat. There IS NO moral dilemma for them AT ALL. This is not a real property purchase we are talking about here. This is a continuing that says USC is supposed to continue to perform for all of eternity and the new regime at USC doesn't want to perform it any more because it's just not in their interests.

If this continues to be fought in court the old regime will probably win because this was drafted by USC officials in their official capacity, but it was still a betrayal to USC athletics and they won't get specific performance. They'll get offered a settlement and if court likes they will approve it or come up with a sum it think is fair for settlement/damages.

You have to understand not all contracts are the same. It's rare that contracts are this one-sided and exist for lifetime and are willable. People don't make these kinds of contracts unless they are between buddies or are desperate or both. How long have they honored this deal now. 30 years? Enough is enough. If USC is going to take negative PR for breaking their deal than they should get some props for honoring this ridiculous arrangement for for 30 dang years.

Ok then I don't want you to object to the College players who are trying to get additional benefits in the future to come, or the union NW came up with. And the possible future earnings that College players get, because you know what if they aren't happy with their contracts they sign with the schools they can breach the contract if they want to get additional benefits. Same type of situation, and for you to go against that, and this makes you a hypocrite.

You make the mistake of thinking contracts and morals have something to do with each other. They are business tools. Nothing more. If I am an AD my PRIMARY duty is to do to what is best for the the Athletic Department and the university. That duty comes before any other duties to anyone else. Why should a new AD honor someone else's ridiculous deal that he wasn't even there to sign off on? I sure as heck would not honor any deal I don't agree with made by other people if I thought it was not what was best. I only uphold promises I ACTUALLY make. If I break I promise that I never made, that has nothing to do with me being a man of my word. I would do what I could to negotiate myself out of it first . If that didn't work, and these old contracts were standing in the way of my vision for THE FUTURE of the program I'd sure as heck be ready to go war for that vision. In my opinion these people have already gotten all they deserve out of that deal. They have already received its value and then some. It's time for this old regime to go and quit clinging to the promises of people who are long gone. It's time for the days of good-ol-boy favoritism to stop.

Yes, exactly right! This is one view of contractual rights. They are amoral tools of the businessman.

However, this is also exactly the same reason a few CEOs have cited as justification when they are caught lying, obstructing, committing perjury, and cheating customers and people harmed by those actions. They are justified (in their minds) because the sole purpose of the CEO is to maximize profits. Therefore, all manner of crimes and immoral acts are within the scope of the corporate executive.

It is a sick, sick world we live in that this has now become the predominant viewpoint in the major corporate boardrooms in America. But I guess corporations really are not American (unless claiming to be so will help the bottom line) because screwing over countrymen has to be justified so that we can maximize our corporate profits. Corporations are really not human but only exist for making profit and we are the helmsmen. It is only coincidental that we are also personally getting rich at the same time. Oh, yea, let's get some subsidies on the backs of taxpayers while we're at it so we can factorize our profits.

Ironically, honorable companies are at a competitive disadvantage since they unilaterally keep their word. Yep, the old Carolina is dead.

Kissing the rear ends of old people does equate not good ethics. Eric Hyman didn't promise this people jack squat, Ray Tanner didn't promise these people jack squat. There IS NO moral dilemma for them AT ALL. This is not a real property purchase we are talking about here. This is a continuing that says USC is supposed to continue to perform for all of eternity and the new regime at USC doesn't want to perform it any more because it's just not in their interests.

If this continues to be fought in court the old regime will probably win because this was drafted by USC officials in their official capacity, but it was still a betrayal to USC athletics and they won't get specific performance. They'll get offered a settlement and if court likes they will approve it or come up with a sum it think is fair for settlement/damages.

You have to understand not all contracts are the same. It's rare that contracts are this one-sided and exist for lifetime and are willable. People don't make these kinds of contracts unless they are between buddies or are desperate or both. How long have they honored this deal now. 30 years? Enough is enough. If USC is going to take negative PR for breaking their deal than they should get some props for honoring this ridiculous arrangement for for 30 dang years.

Ok then I don't want you to object to the College players who are trying to get additional benefits in the future to come, or the union NW came up with. And the possible future earnings that College players get, because you know what if they aren't happy with their contracts they sign with the schools they can breach the contract if they want to get additional benefits. Same type of situation, and for you to go against that, and this makes you a hypocrite.